Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1501
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 01:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  He is probably very frustrated.
Kansas officials know what they need to do, but there are no guarantees and $350 Million is a lot to spend no matter which level of conference (G or P ) Kansas will find itself in in the next few years..

http://www.kansan.com/sports/weekly-deba...4e82d.html

With many projecting the next big wave of conference realignment to begin in 2023, that will allow Kansas football to include their completely new renovations — with a five year projection — on their resume.

Instead of being left in the dust with the possibility of other Big 12 members departing, Kansas can thus be allowed to lead the pack and make the decisive move.

So what leaves me a bit puzzled here is that only the SEC has stadium and luxury box standards that we seek from member schools. So why would Kansas throw 350 million at a football stadium and indoor practice facilities? Only in the SEC does every member school have indoor practice facilities. Only in the SEC would they need to prove their investment in football?

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the peculiar nature of this?

It's not just you. My thought would be that someone, somewhere has told Kansas that they need to step their game up.

I can only think of two reasons why a school would agree to spend that much money on a project.

1. They've been guaranteed it will pay off and they just need to make a good faith effort.

2. They've been told they have no shot unless they do something drastic.

I tend to think it's the former in KU's situation because they are not without stature...flagship school, national fan base with an elite basketball brand, and they proved in the Mangino days that they can have a pulse if they put their mind to it.

I believe it was Sankey who said a while back that we should look to our previous additions to get a clue on what our approach would be for the next round. He mentioned AAU schools and contiguous states. Well, we're not getting any ACC schools so Kansas fits that stated criteria about as well as anyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from the angle of luxury seating and amenities, but you're right about that...the SEC is going to put more emphasis on that than anyone else.

It was an unnamed Kansas official who was quoted a few years back as saying the SEC would be an ideal landing spot. An unnamed SEC official was quoted in the same article saying that wasn't a direction they thought they would go in, but he didn't say "never" or "no interest." Missouri was a bridge into the region and Kansas secures a pretty significant slice of that region. They are the yin and yang, if you will, of that part of the country.

But yes, it's always made more sense to me that Kansas would drop that kind of money on football to get the attention of the SEC rather than necessarily to appease anyone else.

And it's always made more sense to me that a conservative state that was centered more around life in small cities and small towns as opposed to metropolitan mega centers while also being the sort of place that is passionate about local college athletics would be a better fit in the SEC as opposed to the B1G regardless of any Midwestern flavor.

Alright, we are in agreement on reasoning. So the next question is straight forward. Who comes with them?

My theory a while back was that ESPN would try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC because I felt like those were the products that would profit the network the most and that the SEC was the most convenient place to stick them.

But that's just a theory.

That's logical and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'll be doing a thread shortly in which I'll go into to depth about why 16 is a myth and how it doesn't fit in with a streaming model while larger conferences do.

From a regional point of view you can't maximize the value of Texas and Oklahoma unless you take enough of the schools they care about playing.

If we made the move to take Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas whether we took Oklahoma State or not. It makes Missouri folks feel at home, restores rivalries, and more importantly makes the SECN a must for that entire region. The way to keep subscription fees will be to encompass what whole regions crave.

Kansas and Texas are two schools that ESPN has more interest in from the Big 12.

If FOX is silently in agreement on the moves however, we may not jump to 18. There's a lot that has to play out here. And funny things can happen if it looks like the coming moves will be the final ones for some time.

Just how nailed down is N.D.? If I'm the Big 10 there are no two additions that do more for me than Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Yeah, yeah, I know N.D. has intentionally eluded them for decades, but if you have to go all in to get access to the playoffs who would you choose? A conference that pays you 23 million more per year and would put you in a division where if you beat two schools Penn State and Ohio State you get in, or would you rather go through Clemson and Florida State? I'm not saying N.D. takes that deal but their partial membership is easier to buy out. Their hockey is already in the Big 10, and Football is their game and the Big 10 is building lacrosse.

If the Big 10 bolsters the West with OU and nails down their exclusivity in major cities with N.D. then they are looking at a fatter contract and the whole thing makes geographical sense. It's their best move to 16 without taking Texas.

If the SEC adds Texas and Kansas and the Big 10 added OU and N.D. that cements both conferences in spades.

Plus look at strategically. If we ever do move to 20 to fully capture the regions we hold then those two sets of moves leaves the SEC & Big 10 primed to expand eastward and fulfilled to the West.

Would this happen? Probably not, but the logic and completeness of those two moves are strategies that have to be considered. The money involved for both would be huge, large enough to make a 350 million dollar investment worthwhile. And large enough to remain a lure should a larger sized conference afford more leverage whether for streaming or for a conference cable network, or both.

So I toss that idea out there partially to explore it, partially to stir the pot in a slow period, but mostly because it would be no nonsense high dollar plays for both the SEC and Big 10.
05-05-2018 02:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1502
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what leaves me a bit puzzled here is that only the SEC has stadium and luxury box standards that we seek from member schools. So why would Kansas throw 350 million at a football stadium and indoor practice facilities? Only in the SEC does every member school have indoor practice facilities. Only in the SEC would they need to prove their investment in football?

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the peculiar nature of this?


It's not just you. My thought would be that someone, somewhere has told Kansas that they need to step their game up.

I can only think of two reasons why a school would agree to spend that much money on a project.

1. They've been guaranteed it will pay off and they just need to make a good faith effort.

2. They've been told they have no shot unless they do something drastic.

I tend to think it's the former in KU's situation because they are not without stature...flagship school, national fan base with an elite basketball brand, and they proved in the Mangino days that they can have a pulse if they put their mind to it.

I believe it was Sankey who said a while back that we should look to our previous additions to get a clue on what our approach would be for the next round. He mentioned AAU schools and contiguous states. Well, we're not getting any ACC schools so Kansas fits that stated criteria about as well as anyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from the angle of luxury seating and amenities, but you're right about that...the SEC is going to put more emphasis on that than anyone else.

It was an unnamed Kansas official who was quoted a few years back as saying the SEC would be an ideal landing spot. An unnamed SEC official was quoted in the same article saying that wasn't a direction they thought they would go in, but he didn't say "never" or "no interest." Missouri was a bridge into the region and Kansas secures a pretty significant slice of that region. They are the yin and yang, if you will, of that part of the country.

But yes, it's always made more sense to me that Kansas would drop that kind of money on football to get the attention of the SEC rather than necessarily to appease anyone else.

And it's always made more sense to me that a conservative state that was centered more around life in small cities and small towns as opposed to metropolitan mega centers while also being the sort of place that is passionate about local college athletics would be a better fit in the SEC as opposed to the B1G regardless of any Midwestern flavor.

Alright, we are in agreement on reasoning. So the next question is straight forward. Who comes with them?

My theory a while back was that ESPN would try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC because I felt like those were the products that would profit the network the most and that the SEC was the most convenient place to stick them.

But that's just a theory.

That's logical and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'll be doing a thread shortly in which I'll go into to depth about why 16 is a myth and how it doesn't fit in with a streaming model while larger conferences do.

From a regional point of view you can't maximize the value of Texas and Oklahoma unless you take enough of the schools they care about playing.

If we made the move to take Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas whether we took Oklahoma State or not. It makes Missouri folks feel at home, restores rivalries, and more importantly makes the SECN a must for that entire region. The way to keep subscription fees will be to encompass what whole regions crave.

Kansas and Texas are two schools that ESPN has more interest in from the Big 12.

If FOX is silently in agreement on the moves however, we may not jump to 18. There's a lot that has to play out here. And funny things can happen if it looks like the coming moves will be the final ones for some time.

Just how nailed down is N.D.? If I'm the Big 10 there are no two additions that do more for me than Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Yeah, yeah, I know N.D. has intentionally eluded them for decades, but if you have to go all in to get access to the playoffs who would you choose? A conference that pays you 23 million more per year and would put you in a division where if you beat two schools Penn State and Ohio State you get in, or would you rather go through Clemson and Florida State? I'm not saying N.D. takes that deal but their partial membership is easier to buy out. Their hockey is already in the Big 10, and Football is their game and the Big 10 is building lacrosse.

If the Big 10 bolsters the West with OU and nails down their exclusivity in major cities with N.D. then they are looking at a fatter contract and the whole thing makes geographical sense. It's their best move to 16 without taking Texas.

If the SEC adds Texas and Kansas and the Big 10 added OU and N.D. that cements both conferences in spades.

Plus look at strategically. If we ever do move to 20 to fully capture the regions we hold then those two sets of moves leaves the SEC & Big 10 primed to expand eastward and fulfilled to the West.

Would this happen? Probably not, but the logic and completeness of those two moves are strategies that have to be considered. The money involved for both would be huge, large enough to make a 350 million dollar investment worthwhile. And large enough to remain a lure should a larger sized conference afford more leverage whether for streaming or for a conference cable network, or both.

So I toss that idea out there partially to explore it, partially to stir the pot in a slow period, but mostly because it would be no nonsense high dollar plays for both the SEC and Big 10.

Trolling?
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2018 07:11 AM by XLance.)
05-05-2018 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OdinFrigg Online
Gone Fishing
*

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 397
I Root For: Canine & Avian
Location: 4,250 mi sw of Oslo
Post: #1503
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2018 08:05 AM by OdinFrigg.)
05-05-2018 07:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1504
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-03-2018 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  An interesting tweet out of Kansas Finance Manager Baty today. He said their donors had to really step it up for the football program because the Jayhawks needed to position themselves for the coming realignment.

It's significant for two reasons.

1. It's a University official still talking about the coming realignment and that's a first for this off season.

2. Kansas is very aware of their precarious situation with regards to being of value to another P5 conference.

http://www2.kusports.com/weblogs/keegan-...structs-k/

That guy is taking a poor approach to fundraising although that may be a sign that there's some degree of desperation within the administration.

My opinion has been that ESPN is going to ultimately rescue Kansas. They have a national fan base and the network is going to want/need as much content as they can get especially in the age of ESPN+.

If KU can prove themselves as a halfway decent attraction in football then I think ESPN has no problem pulling the trigger. Technically, KU won't be worth the money to the B1G or the SEC, but they would likely be worth the money to ESPN so I think they wouldn't have a problem overpaying for them a little.

He is probably very frustrated.
Kansas officials know what they need to do, but there are no guarantees and $350 Million is a lot to spend no matter which level of conference (G or P ) Kansas will find itself in in the next few years..

http://www.kansan.com/sports/weekly-deba...4e82d.html

With many projecting the next big wave of conference realignment to begin in 2023, that will allow Kansas football to include their completely new renovations — with a five year projection — on their resume.

Instead of being left in the dust with the possibility of other Big 12 members departing, Kansas can thus be allowed to lead the pack and make the decisive move.

I'm just thinking out loud here and am not making a definitive statement, but......

If Kansas wanted to head to the Big 10 with Oklahoma do you think for a minute that they would be concerned about football stadium renovations? Seriously look at Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern etc. I don't think the Big 10 has made that big a deal over facilities.

That's certainly not the case for the PAC either. And as far as the ACC goes the venues range from on campus to off campus to professional sports stadiums. I don't see the ACC making a big deal about football facilities.

So what leaves me a bit puzzled here is that only the SEC has stadium and luxury box standards that we seek from member schools. So why would Kansas throw 350 million at a football stadium and indoor practice facilities? Only in the SEC does every member school have indoor practice facilities. Only in the SEC would they need to prove their investment in football?

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the peculiar nature of this?

Might the pairing that ESPN seeks be Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC?

Could Fox be getting dibs on Oklahoma and perhaps it is Texas and Kansas that ESPN has in mind as a pairing?

As conservative as Kansas has been financially, has it occurred to anyone else but me that they would not be investing 350 million into the football facilities if they didn't have some kind of guarantee in return on that money?

What if Oklahoma leaves with Iowa State to head to the Big 10 (with OU under T3 obligation to FOX)?

What if the SEC is looking to get Texas and Kansas (both under T3 obligation to ESPN).

What if the TV execs have decided to reunite OU with Nebraska, UT with A&M and KU with Mizzou?

What if the Big 10's home run duo is Notre Dame or Virginia Tech and Oklahoma? And what if ESPN sees Texas and Texas Tech as a pair to take the ACC to 16 and what if maybe T.C.U. and Kansas are intended for the SEC?

There are just so many different possibilities if Kansas is in preparation for the SEC?

But my best guess would be (if the networks hold form) Texas and Kansas to the SEC. Oklahoma to the Big 10 with a mystery school. Why? It would give Texas everything they could hope for in a move. They relegate the Sooners to a choice that will handicap things to Texas's advantage in the RRR, joining the SEC reunites Texas with Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri and Kansas, and nullifies any advantage that the Aggies gained by joining the SEC without them. And it makes them the star of a division in which the schedule really appeals to their fan base. And it relegates T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech back to an inferior position within the state. And, Kansas is no threat to them and would probably vote with them.

I'm not saying that any of this adds up or will happen. But I do have some relevant questions circulating in my head right now. Thoughts?

Kansas in the Sec? Doubtful.
For a school that has averaged around 30,000 for football over the last 5 years and is trending down fast, I'm not sure they would want to keep football at all.
My bet is that Kansas, like Wichita State, will try to park somewhere without football and not waste that $315 Million on football upgrades. The one exception to that thinking is this: Kansas to the B1G, not with Oklahoma, but with Missouri. This may be the only way Kansas football survives.
05-05-2018 08:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #1505
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
I think one significant question is if the SEC is going to be:

A) the old SEC + the SWC
Or B) the old SEC + the Big 8

Obviously money is going to be a/the deciding factor but in a bigger conference rivalries may be at a premium.

So would it be worth anything to take OK/State/KS/State/Iowa State + ? And have the old Big 8 predominantly in the SEC or is that too many schools that don't contribute $ anyway?

Would taking Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU be much better and have most of the SWC?

Some combination is probably the best option, but im still curious about the value of rivalries and history here.
05-05-2018 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1506
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 07:59 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?

Finebuam has been the one who floated OU and OSU to the SEC. Tramel has stated that the OU alums and a % of the donors prefer the SEC. I just don't see a school moving against the desires of their fan base unless it was their only move.

I've never considered Kansas to be of serious interest to the Big 10. What do they get there that they don't already have?

Slive passed on the pair of Oklahoma schools when Boren pushed that in 2010. But, we already knew that Aggy was coming and we weren't taking 4 unless two were from the East. So there is no new news where OU is concerned. That said they probably are still pushing that angle since the political side is still there.

So my read on this is a bit different than yours. I see nothing new here. OSU to the SEC with OU is our fall back position if we don't get what we want in the pairing and need to salvage a brand out of the next deal.

And consider the psychology at work here. In 2012 the idea of Kansas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first being circulated as a rumor, much like the Va Tech and N.C. State talk two years prior to that it was a kind of trial balloon to test the pulse of the SEC fan base before making a consideration. We have not been above using the rumor, leak, and witless blogger to float such ideas. The pop to that idea was never really there and it was thought to have been a suggestion of ESPN then and I wouldn't be surprised if they were still trying to work that angle.

The academic hype of OU (a school that would place squarely in the middle of the SEC academically) has never seemed to me to be anything but an attempt to gussy up their image for the SEC or PAC. Create the fear that they might head to the Big 10 and it drives interest for the SEC and PAC. That's not to say the Big 10 wouldn't take them, but it is to say they are hardly a slam dunk for them. I think the only interest the Big 10 would have in Oklahoma would be as a bridge to Texas and in that same vein of thought we would see taking them as a defensive move economically and a type of barrier to Texas should the Big 10 threaten to lure the Horns.

But I go back to the point that it makes absolutely no sense, nor does it fit the Kansas profile business wise for them to spend 350 million for renovations on a sport they haven't valued as much as hoops just as an attempt to get into another P5 conference, unless it was the SEC. We are the only conference with prerequisites on luxury accommodations, camera placement requirements, and practice facilities. Kansas could go to any other conference without having to tackle these matters. So why now? Why for so much?
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2018 10:17 AM by JRsec.)
05-05-2018 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1507
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 09:35 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I think one significant question is if the SEC is going to be:

A) the old SEC + the SWC
Or B) the old SEC + the Big 8

Obviously money is going to be a/the deciding factor but in a bigger conference rivalries may be at a premium.

So would it be worth anything to take OK/State/KS/State/Iowa State + ? And have the old Big 8 predominantly in the SEC or is that too many schools that don't contribute $ anyway?

Would taking Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU be much better and have most of the SWC?

Some combination is probably the best option, but im still curious about the value of rivalries and history here.

Good question. But it's difficult to read either conferences (B1G or SEC) intentions right now. Either would grow to land Texas or Oklahoma. How many we would take to get them? That's another matter entirely.
05-05-2018 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1508
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 09:35 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I think one significant question is if the SEC is going to be:

A) the old SEC + the SWC
Or B) the old SEC + the Big 8

Obviously money is going to be a/the deciding factor but in a bigger conference rivalries may be at a premium.

So would it be worth anything to take OK/State/KS/State/Iowa State + ? And have the old Big 8 predominantly in the SEC or is that too many schools that don't contribute $ anyway?

Would taking Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU be much better and have most of the SWC?

Some combination is probably the best option, but im still curious about the value of rivalries and history here.

As of right now it's SWC-2 and Big 8-1.
05-05-2018 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1509
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 11:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 09:35 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I think one significant question is if the SEC is going to be:

A) the old SEC + the SWC
Or B) the old SEC + the Big 8

Obviously money is going to be a/the deciding factor but in a bigger conference rivalries may be at a premium.

So would it be worth anything to take OK/State/KS/State/Iowa State + ? And have the old Big 8 predominantly in the SEC or is that too many schools that don't contribute $ anyway?

Would taking Texas/Tech/Baylor/TCU be much better and have most of the SWC?

Some combination is probably the best option, but im still curious about the value of rivalries and history here.

As of right now it's SWC-2 and Big 8-1.

There's more to be made in Texas than in Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and West Virginia combined. But that said there's no doubt that as a brand Oklahoma is a prize. Kansas would make a fine tag along for Texas or Oklahoma. Kansas with Texas is like getting Don Quixote along with Sancho Panza. Kansas with Oklahoma is more like getting Gabby Hayes with Roy Rogers.
05-05-2018 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1510
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-04-2018 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So what leaves me a bit puzzled here is that only the SEC has stadium and luxury box standards that we seek from member schools. So why would Kansas throw 350 million at a football stadium and indoor practice facilities? Only in the SEC does every member school have indoor practice facilities. Only in the SEC would they need to prove their investment in football?

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the peculiar nature of this?

It's not just you. My thought would be that someone, somewhere has told Kansas that they need to step their game up.

I can only think of two reasons why a school would agree to spend that much money on a project.

1. They've been guaranteed it will pay off and they just need to make a good faith effort.

2. They've been told they have no shot unless they do something drastic.

I tend to think it's the former in KU's situation because they are not without stature...flagship school, national fan base with an elite basketball brand, and they proved in the Mangino days that they can have a pulse if they put their mind to it.

I believe it was Sankey who said a while back that we should look to our previous additions to get a clue on what our approach would be for the next round. He mentioned AAU schools and contiguous states. Well, we're not getting any ACC schools so Kansas fits that stated criteria about as well as anyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from the angle of luxury seating and amenities, but you're right about that...the SEC is going to put more emphasis on that than anyone else.

It was an unnamed Kansas official who was quoted a few years back as saying the SEC would be an ideal landing spot. An unnamed SEC official was quoted in the same article saying that wasn't a direction they thought they would go in, but he didn't say "never" or "no interest." Missouri was a bridge into the region and Kansas secures a pretty significant slice of that region. They are the yin and yang, if you will, of that part of the country.

But yes, it's always made more sense to me that Kansas would drop that kind of money on football to get the attention of the SEC rather than necessarily to appease anyone else.

And it's always made more sense to me that a conservative state that was centered more around life in small cities and small towns as opposed to metropolitan mega centers while also being the sort of place that is passionate about local college athletics would be a better fit in the SEC as opposed to the B1G regardless of any Midwestern flavor.

Alright, we are in agreement on reasoning. So the next question is straight forward. Who comes with them?

My theory a while back was that ESPN would try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC because I felt like those were the products that would profit the network the most and that the SEC was the most convenient place to stick them.

But that's just a theory.

That's logical and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'll be doing a thread shortly in which I'll go into to depth about why 16 is a myth and how it doesn't fit in with a streaming model while larger conferences do.

From a regional point of view you can't maximize the value of Texas and Oklahoma unless you take enough of the schools they care about playing.

If we made the move to take Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas whether we took Oklahoma State or not. It makes Missouri folks feel at home, restores rivalries, and more importantly makes the SECN a must for that entire region. The way to keep subscription fees will be to encompass what whole regions crave.

Kansas and Texas are two schools that ESPN has more interest in from the Big 12.

If FOX is silently in agreement on the moves however, we may not jump to 18. There's a lot that has to play out here. And funny things can happen if it looks like the coming moves will be the final ones for some time.

Just how nailed down is N.D.? If I'm the Big 10 there are no two additions that do more for me than Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Yeah, yeah, I know N.D. has intentionally eluded them for decades, but if you have to go all in to get access to the playoffs who would you choose? A conference that pays you 23 million more per year and would put you in a division where if you beat two schools Penn State and Ohio State you get in, or would you rather go through Clemson and Florida State? I'm not saying N.D. takes that deal but their partial membership is easier to buy out. Their hockey is already in the Big 10, and Football is their game and the Big 10 is building lacrosse.

If the Big 10 bolsters the West with OU and nails down their exclusivity in major cities with N.D. then they are looking at a fatter contract and the whole thing makes geographical sense. It's their best move to 16 without taking Texas.

If the SEC adds Texas and Kansas and the Big 10 added OU and N.D. that cements both conferences in spades.

Plus look at strategically. If we ever do move to 20 to fully capture the regions we hold then those two sets of moves leaves the SEC & Big 10 primed to expand eastward and fulfilled to the West.

Would this happen? Probably not, but the logic and completeness of those two moves are strategies that have to be considered. The money involved for both would be huge, large enough to make a 350 million dollar investment worthwhile. And large enough to remain a lure should a larger sized conference afford more leverage whether for streaming or for a conference cable network, or both.

So I toss that idea out there partially to explore it, partially to stir the pot in a slow period, but mostly because it would be no nonsense high dollar plays for both the SEC and Big 10.

I think ND making that move would be difficult. It could cause some degree of instability in the ACC and with the ACCN coming on line, I'm not sure ESPN would risk it. I think the ACC would really have to get something special in return in order to not put up a fuss and I don't know what that could be in this scenario.

If Oklahoma ends up going to the B1G here then I could maybe see Colorado breaking rank and joining them.

I think the PAC is in a precarious position, but if they allow CU to leave for the purpose of satiating the B1G in the near term then perhaps there's more value to be had elsewhere.

The PAC could very easily accommodate 5 schools...let's say Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State. At that point, they perhaps set themselves up for a more favorable TV deal in the not too distant future if they're willing to play ball now.

The ACC could take West Virginia along with Notre Dame going in full and we have 4 major conferences with 16 schools each.

The B1G and the SEC both get new brands and markets. The Big 12 is disbanded with only Baylor suffering relegation. The PAC earns a more favorable position with the networks. The ACC gets rounded out with solid additions.
05-05-2018 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1511
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 05:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:39 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 01:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's not just you. My thought would be that someone, somewhere has told Kansas that they need to step their game up.

I can only think of two reasons why a school would agree to spend that much money on a project.

1. They've been guaranteed it will pay off and they just need to make a good faith effort.

2. They've been told they have no shot unless they do something drastic.

I tend to think it's the former in KU's situation because they are not without stature...flagship school, national fan base with an elite basketball brand, and they proved in the Mangino days that they can have a pulse if they put their mind to it.

I believe it was Sankey who said a while back that we should look to our previous additions to get a clue on what our approach would be for the next round. He mentioned AAU schools and contiguous states. Well, we're not getting any ACC schools so Kansas fits that stated criteria about as well as anyone.

I hadn't really thought about it from the angle of luxury seating and amenities, but you're right about that...the SEC is going to put more emphasis on that than anyone else.

It was an unnamed Kansas official who was quoted a few years back as saying the SEC would be an ideal landing spot. An unnamed SEC official was quoted in the same article saying that wasn't a direction they thought they would go in, but he didn't say "never" or "no interest." Missouri was a bridge into the region and Kansas secures a pretty significant slice of that region. They are the yin and yang, if you will, of that part of the country.

But yes, it's always made more sense to me that Kansas would drop that kind of money on football to get the attention of the SEC rather than necessarily to appease anyone else.

And it's always made more sense to me that a conservative state that was centered more around life in small cities and small towns as opposed to metropolitan mega centers while also being the sort of place that is passionate about local college athletics would be a better fit in the SEC as opposed to the B1G regardless of any Midwestern flavor.

Alright, we are in agreement on reasoning. So the next question is straight forward. Who comes with them?

My theory a while back was that ESPN would try to push Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas into the SEC because I felt like those were the products that would profit the network the most and that the SEC was the most convenient place to stick them.

But that's just a theory.

That's logical and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'll be doing a thread shortly in which I'll go into to depth about why 16 is a myth and how it doesn't fit in with a streaming model while larger conferences do.

From a regional point of view you can't maximize the value of Texas and Oklahoma unless you take enough of the schools they care about playing.

If we made the move to take Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas whether we took Oklahoma State or not. It makes Missouri folks feel at home, restores rivalries, and more importantly makes the SECN a must for that entire region. The way to keep subscription fees will be to encompass what whole regions crave.

Kansas and Texas are two schools that ESPN has more interest in from the Big 12.

If FOX is silently in agreement on the moves however, we may not jump to 18. There's a lot that has to play out here. And funny things can happen if it looks like the coming moves will be the final ones for some time.

Just how nailed down is N.D.? If I'm the Big 10 there are no two additions that do more for me than Oklahoma and Notre Dame. Yeah, yeah, I know N.D. has intentionally eluded them for decades, but if you have to go all in to get access to the playoffs who would you choose? A conference that pays you 23 million more per year and would put you in a division where if you beat two schools Penn State and Ohio State you get in, or would you rather go through Clemson and Florida State? I'm not saying N.D. takes that deal but their partial membership is easier to buy out. Their hockey is already in the Big 10, and Football is their game and the Big 10 is building lacrosse.

If the Big 10 bolsters the West with OU and nails down their exclusivity in major cities with N.D. then they are looking at a fatter contract and the whole thing makes geographical sense. It's their best move to 16 without taking Texas.

If the SEC adds Texas and Kansas and the Big 10 added OU and N.D. that cements both conferences in spades.

Plus look at strategically. If we ever do move to 20 to fully capture the regions we hold then those two sets of moves leaves the SEC & Big 10 primed to expand eastward and fulfilled to the West.

Would this happen? Probably not, but the logic and completeness of those two moves are strategies that have to be considered. The money involved for both would be huge, large enough to make a 350 million dollar investment worthwhile. And large enough to remain a lure should a larger sized conference afford more leverage whether for streaming or for a conference cable network, or both.

So I toss that idea out there partially to explore it, partially to stir the pot in a slow period, but mostly because it would be no nonsense high dollar plays for both the SEC and Big 10.

I think ND making that move would be difficult. It could cause some degree of instability in the ACC and with the ACCN coming on line, I'm not sure ESPN would risk it. I think the ACC would really have to get something special in return in order to not put up a fuss and I don't know what that could be in this scenario.

If Oklahoma ends up going to the B1G here then I could maybe see Colorado breaking rank and joining them.

I think the PAC is in a precarious position, but if they allow CU to leave for the purpose of satiating the B1G in the near term then perhaps there's more value to be had elsewhere.

The PAC could very easily accommodate 5 schools...let's say Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State. At that point, they perhaps set themselves up for a more favorable TV deal in the not too distant future if they're willing to play ball now.

The ACC could take West Virginia along with Notre Dame going in full and we have 4 major conferences with 16 schools each.

The B1G and the SEC both get new brands and markets. The Big 12 is disbanded with only Baylor suffering relegation. The PAC earns a more favorable position with the networks. The ACC gets rounded out with solid additions.

N.D. is only restricted by ACC contract from not joining any other conference but the ACC until 2027.

But you are probably right. The travel companion for OU would be another interesting topic indeed. But that said, strategically N.D. is the most valuable candidate for the Big 10 to acquire. Having them gives the Big 10 exclusivity to many of their own major cities which advertisers can use N.D. to access. Gain N.D. and leverage for rates go up. And 23 million more would be mighty tempting.

So hypothetically let's say this unfolds this way:

Along about 2022-3 N.D. gets a very good look at what the profitability of the ACCN could be and they get to see if indeed the ACC is making 10 million more by then. Remember that this year they will probably make around 30 million plus or minus 1 million. So lets say that they are making 40 million by 2023 when the Big 10 approaches them about about making 60 should they come on board with the Sooners or for the sake of argument even Texas. Either way given the accretion of value for the Big 10 contract and about a 5 million dollar boost for the addition of two such brands wouldn't you as the president of Notre Dame begin to look at your diminishing power in an ever more secular world, and with the death of Boomers upon you, and the passing of the last vested generation just beginning, might you be really tempted by the revenue infusion? And what if it's worse. What if the ACCN has only paid out 7 million more and the Big 10 could put you up 23 million at a time when streaming is beginning to take its toll and being part of a larger bargaining group outstrips the desire for independence? Who has the most leverage? Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin and Nebraska wanting to add OU/orUT and you, or Florida State, Clemson, and occasionally Virginia Tech, Miami, or Louisville?

The Irish have a long history of taking care of themselves and for the duration of a contract with a conference that may one day mean conference membership, at least until they see a healthier climate for independence reemerge.

If Texas/or Oklahoma and Kansas headed to the SEC then their valuations will stay remarkably close to those of the Big 10. That's a lot of money for them to turn down.

Power now is ruling your own conference. Power tomorrow might well be acting in concert with other large brands. In a streaming world bonding with other powers is the leverage you will need to keep revenue high. Do that and all of your games are essentially premium value as opposed to maybe 3 to 5 of them elsewhere. The A.D.s already know this.

With Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame and Texas off the board then the balance of power will only be with the SEC and Big 10. They then will be able to grow as they see fit to whatever size and product alignment benefits them most. And to think the ACC probably had an excellent shot at all 4 in 2010 and a few of their members passed it up. If those 4 all wound up in the Big 10 and SEC that would be ironic indeed.

Now if ESPN is feeling hoggish and nothing has been worked out with FOX with regard to the Big 12 then 2010's opportunities might be offered again.

It's going to be fun in the next few years to see how this plays out.
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2018 10:27 PM by JRsec.)
05-05-2018 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1512
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
JR, you are a little off on your dates. The Notre Dame contract with the ACC runs through 2037 (not 2027).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...60542.html

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...318551001/
05-06-2018 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1513
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you are a little off on your dates. The Notre Dame contract with the ACC runs through 2037 (not 2027).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...60542.html

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...318551001/

Okay, then N.D. extended as well when the GOR was extended. I missed that and found an article in a search that had the original date. Still, buying out 5 games a year for 12 years is like buying out 5 years on a contract. It's steep but could be done if the difference is 20 million a year. So if things split along network lines who would announce they were going with OU to the Big 10 in 2023 or so? If Texas and Kansas were headed to the SEC I don't think it would be Missouri, would the Big 10 take Iowa State with OU? I don't think Colorado will leave the PAC until they have to. OU and OSU to the SEC works with Texas and Kansas to the Big 10 only ESPN loses two that it has expressed interest in to gain one they might have interest in. I don't see that happening. Now OU and Kansas to the SEC and Texas to the ACC would work for ESPN but what does it do for Texas even if N.D. goes all in with it? That's a mighty long distance to take your minor sports.

So is 16 really workable out of the Big 12? Not for more than 1 conference unless the 2nd conference is the ACC taking West Virginia.
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018 11:23 AM by JRsec.)
05-06-2018 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1514
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you are a little off on your dates. The Notre Dame contract with the ACC runs through 2037 (not 2027).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...60542.html

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...318551001/

Okay, then N.D. extended as well when the GOR was extended. I missed that and found an article in a search that had the original date. Still, buying out 5 games a year for 12 years is like buying out 5 years on a contract. It's steep but could be done if the difference is 20 million a year.

ESPN isn't letting Notre Dame (where they have all of their content other than 7 football games a year, go to the B1G ((whose content they don't Own)) ) out of the signed GOR anytime before 2037.

That's realignment 101, JR and well beyond a rookie mistake......
05-06-2018 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1515
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 11:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you are a little off on your dates. The Notre Dame contract with the ACC runs through 2037 (not 2027).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...60542.html

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...318551001/

Okay, then N.D. extended as well when the GOR was extended. I missed that and found an article in a search that had the original date. Still, buying out 5 games a year for 12 years is like buying out 5 years on a contract. It's steep but could be done if the difference is 20 million a year.

ESPN isn't letting Notre Dame (where they have all of their content other than 7 football games a year, go to the B1G ((whose content they don't Own)) ) out of the signed GOR anytime before 2037.

That's realignment 101, JR and well beyond a rookie mistake......

Do you really think N.D. gives a rats butt about the ACC or ESPN? They care about N.D. and when the difference is 200 million in a decade do you really think that ESPN can stop them? That's business 101 and well within the grasp of a 10 year old there X. They might well wait until there are 5 or 6 years left on that contract which puts a time frame for their movement around the same time that Texas is out of the LHN contract. We are talking about buying out 40% of their schedule for 5 years at that point.

Besides X ESPN only has a piece of them in the only sport where they are money and then they only have access to 5 games. That's not much of a hold.

My points in this speculation remain:

1. Kansas doesn't have to spend 315 million (350 million total) on renovations for the football venue and other sports enhancements to join the Big 10 (if they had interest) or any other conference except for the SEC where such things are requirements.

2. Notre Dame does more for the Big 10's bottom line than any school not named Texas.

3. ESPN does have their wallets invested into Texas and Kansas and FOX has theirs invested in Oklahoma.

4. There aren't enough prizes in the Big 12 for two wealthy conferences like the Big 10 and SEC to expand out of together without involving another conference. AllTideUp' suggestion of Colorado is at least workable within the timeline. But after wanting the PAC for a long long time I just don't see the Buffs moving.

5. There is a real possibility that Texas and Oklahoma will simply renew the GOR after they find out everyone's offers in 2023-5. By extending the GOR to within a year or two of the end of the ACC's GOR they merely stall and wait to see what develops. Under that potentiality it would be interesting to see if Oklahoma would accept an offer from the SEC that included OSU. All the SEC has to do next time around is land one of OU or UT and we are set.

6. The ACCN will be fine unless the linear network model collapses altogether. If it does then grouping brands will become the best solution to losing leverage and subscribers. Then conferences will have no ceiling on size other than the number of profitable brands they can assemble for collective bargaining purposes. So those who are thinking conferences are going to move toward smaller regional configurations need to think again. There won't be enough strength in broad appeal to monetize contracts on that concept. Breadth of brand will deliver the larger payouts. That means more than 16 schools to a grouping.

It's not about realignment X which is why you've always been playing catch up. It's about business models, product placement, about maintaining the highest % of actual viewers, leverage on advertising rates, and leverage on contracts. There's the rookie mistake, and it belongs to you.

And for the record, ESPN owns the rights to a larger % of the Big 10 football than they do to Notre Dame football. I thought they educated people in math and business at North Carolina?
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018 12:01 PM by JRsec.)
05-06-2018 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #1516
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 11:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-06-2018 08:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, you are a little off on your dates. The Notre Dame contract with the ACC runs through 2037 (not 2027).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...60542.html

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/co...318551001/

Okay, then N.D. extended as well when the GOR was extended. I missed that and found an article in a search that had the original date. Still, buying out 5 games a year for 12 years is like buying out 5 years on a contract. It's steep but could be done if the difference is 20 million a year.

ESPN isn't letting Notre Dame (where they have all of their content other than 7 football games a year, go to the B1G ((whose content they don't Own)) ) out of the signed GOR anytime before 2037.

That's realignment 101, JR and well beyond a rookie mistake......

Do you really think N.D. gives a rats butt about the ACC or ESPN? They care about N.D. and when the difference is 200 million in a decade do you really think that ESPN can stop them? That's business 101 and well within the grasp of a 10 year old there X. They might well wait until there are 5 or 6 years left on that contract which puts a time frame for their movement around the same time that Texas is out of the LHN contract. We are talking about buying out 40% of their schedule for 5 years at that point.

Besides X ESPN only has a piece of them in the only sport where they are money and then they only have access to 5 games. That's not much of a hold.

My points in this speculation remain:

1. Kansas doesn't have to spend 315 million (350 million total) on renovations for the football venue and other sports enhancements to join the Big 10 (if they had interest) or any other conference except for the SEC where such things are requirements.

2. Notre Dame does more for the Big 10's bottom line than any school not named Texas.

3. ESPN does have their wallets invested into Texas and Kansas and FOX has theirs invested in Oklahoma.

4. There aren't enough prizes in the Big 12 for two wealthy conferences like the Big 10 and SEC to expand out of together without involving another conference. AllTideUp' suggestion of Colorado is at least workable within the timeline. But after wanting the PAC for a long long time I just don't see the Buffs moving.

5. There is a real possibility that Texas and Oklahoma will simply renew the GOR after they find out everyone's offers in 2023-5. By extending the GOR to within a year or two of the end of the ACC's GOR they merely stall and wait to see what develops. Under that potentiality it would be interesting to see if Oklahoma would accept an offer from the SEC that included OSU. All the SEC has to do next time around is land one of OU or UT and we are set.

6. The ACCN will be fine unless the linear network model collapses altogether. If it does then grouping brands will become the best solution to losing leverage and subscribers. Then conferences will have no ceiling on size other than the number of profitable brands they can assemble for collective bargaining purposes. So those who are thinking conferences are going to move toward smaller regional configurations need to think again. There won't be enough strength in broad appeal to monetize contracts on that concept. Breadth of brand will deliver the larger payouts. That means more than 16 schools to a grouping.

It's not about realignment X which is why you've always been playing catch up. It's about business models, product placement, about maintaining the highest % of actual viewers, leverage on advertising rates, and leverage on contracts. There's the rookie mistake, and it belongs to you.

And for the record, ESPN owns the rights to a larger % of the Big 10 football than they do to Notre Dame football. I thought they educated people in math and business at North Carolina?

Yes!
05-06-2018 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1517
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-05-2018 07:59 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?

(05-05-2018 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 07:59 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?

Finebuam has been the one who floated OU and OSU to the SEC. Tramel has stated that the OU alums and a % of the donors prefer the SEC. I just don't see a school moving against the desires of their fan base unless it was their only move.

I've never considered Kansas to be of serious interest to the Big 10. What do they get there that they don't already have?

Slive passed on the pair of Oklahoma schools when Boren pushed that in 2010. But, we already knew that Aggy was coming and we weren't taking 4 unless two were from the East. So there is no new news where OU is concerned. That said they probably are still pushing that angle since the political side is still there.

So my read on this is a bit different than yours. I see nothing new here. OSU to the SEC with OU is our fall back position if we don't get what we want in the pairing and need to salvage a brand out of the next deal.

And consider the psychology at work here. In 2012 the idea of Kansas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first being circulated as a rumor, much like the Va Tech and N.C. State talk two years prior to that it was a kind of trial balloon to test the pulse of the SEC fan base before making a consideration. We have not been above using the rumor, leak, and witless blogger to float such ideas. The pop to that idea was never really there and it was thought to have been a suggestion of ESPN then and I wouldn't be surprised if they were still trying to work that angle.

The academic hype of OU (a school that would place squarely in the middle of the SEC academically) has never seemed to me to be anything but an attempt to gussy up their image for the SEC or PAC. Create the fear that they might head to the Big 10 and it drives interest for the SEC and PAC. That's not to say the Big 10 wouldn't take them, but it is to say they are hardly a slam dunk for them. I think the only interest the Big 10 would have in Oklahoma would be as a bridge to Texas and in that same vein of thought we would see taking them as a defensive move economically and a type of barrier to Texas should the Big 10 threaten to lure the Horns.

But I go back to the point that it makes absolutely no sense, nor does it fit the Kansas profile business wise for them to spend 350 million for renovations on a sport they haven't valued as much as hoops just as an attempt to get into another P5 conference, unless it was the SEC. We are the only conference with prerequisites on luxury accommodations, camera placement requirements, and practice facilities. Kansas could go to any other conference without having to tackle these matters. So why now? Why for so much?

Dr. Loh snuck Maryland out of the ACC and into the Big Ten. A rather unpopular choice from their fans at the time.

OU and KU in the SEC would actually make a nice pod in a sixteen member SEC.

OU, KU, Mizzou, Ark
A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
Vandy, UK, Ala, Aub
Tenn, UGa, UF, USC

Or something close
05-06-2018 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1518
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 12:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 07:59 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?

(05-05-2018 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 07:59 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  A few sportswriters/bloggers had been pushing the thought of OU and Kansas to the BIG. Berry Tramel sounded like a big advocate for OU to the BIG; noting the wonderful fit for OU's great academics(???).
Finebaum spoke last year about OU wanting out of the B12. Maybe that is still the case even after appearing in the fb playoffs.
So, OU may be willing to move without oSu if it is the BIG? But to consider the SEC, bringing along oSu is a must.
Or, is this all on the SEC to present a lure? The psychology of this is unsettling, and makes the SEC look less preferable compared to the BIG when it comes to OU.

OU had their opportunity to head to the SEC. This kind of stuff is what is annoying about schools such as Texas, Notre Dame, and OU to a lesser degree.

Would it be more money without the toxicity?

Finebuam has been the one who floated OU and OSU to the SEC. Tramel has stated that the OU alums and a % of the donors prefer the SEC. I just don't see a school moving against the desires of their fan base unless it was their only move.

I've never considered Kansas to be of serious interest to the Big 10. What do they get there that they don't already have?

Slive passed on the pair of Oklahoma schools when Boren pushed that in 2010. But, we already knew that Aggy was coming and we weren't taking 4 unless two were from the East. So there is no new news where OU is concerned. That said they probably are still pushing that angle since the political side is still there.

So my read on this is a bit different than yours. I see nothing new here. OSU to the SEC with OU is our fall back position if we don't get what we want in the pairing and need to salvage a brand out of the next deal.

And consider the psychology at work here. In 2012 the idea of Kansas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first being circulated as a rumor, much like the Va Tech and N.C. State talk two years prior to that it was a kind of trial balloon to test the pulse of the SEC fan base before making a consideration. We have not been above using the rumor, leak, and witless blogger to float such ideas. The pop to that idea was never really there and it was thought to have been a suggestion of ESPN then and I wouldn't be surprised if they were still trying to work that angle.

The academic hype of OU (a school that would place squarely in the middle of the SEC academically) has never seemed to me to be anything but an attempt to gussy up their image for the SEC or PAC. Create the fear that they might head to the Big 10 and it drives interest for the SEC and PAC. That's not to say the Big 10 wouldn't take them, but it is to say they are hardly a slam dunk for them. I think the only interest the Big 10 would have in Oklahoma would be as a bridge to Texas and in that same vein of thought we would see taking them as a defensive move economically and a type of barrier to Texas should the Big 10 threaten to lure the Horns.

But I go back to the point that it makes absolutely no sense, nor does it fit the Kansas profile business wise for them to spend 350 million for renovations on a sport they haven't valued as much as hoops just as an attempt to get into another P5 conference, unless it was the SEC. We are the only conference with prerequisites on luxury accommodations, camera placement requirements, and practice facilities. Kansas could go to any other conference without having to tackle these matters. So why now? Why for so much?

Dr. Loh snuck Maryland out of the ACC and into the Big Ten. A rather unpopular choice from their fans at the time.

OU and KU in the SEC would actually make a nice pod in a sixteen member SEC.

OU, KU, Mizzou, Ark
A&M, LSU, Ole, MSU
Vandy, UK, Ala, Aub
Tenn, UGa, UF, USC

Or something close

Loh was a Big 10 guy, but you are correct. However, Boren wanted the Big 10 and most of his donors and alums didn't. Boren is now retired. Probably for reasons more than just health.
05-06-2018 01:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #1519
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
Here's what makes me think Colorado is a legitimate option in this scenario.

1. If Oklahoma joins the Big Ten then another familiar face will help smooth things out. For that matter, Nebraska could use another familiar face.

2. If the B1G can't break into ACC territory right now then Denver and the CO market really makes a great deal of sense. It is at least a growing state as opposed to most of the Midwest/Northeast markets within reach of the B1G.

3. From CU's perspective, if the PAC can't get a handle on things then they're going to be woefully underfunded. The PAC Network has not been successful so they could make quite a bit more in the B1G.

4. While CU does have a lot of alumni in CA, it's not as though they have large roving bands of fans following their team around PAC territory. If CU moved then they could make up for whatever ripples it caused by consistently scheduling West Coast schools in non-conference.

5. More than that, their exposure in the East and Midwest has been reduced to nil. I wouldn't be shocked if Colorado believed in 2010 that they were going to be the first in a line of Big 12 schools to break ranks and create a larger, more robust PAC. It obviously didn't happen that way, but there had to be discussions of this prospect and we all know Texas was trying to lead a squadron over there. I'm not saying that CU doesn't prefer the PAC, but I'm not convinced that their new conference home is doing everything for them that they expected it would.

-Now, I really don't think Notre Dame is an option to move in this scenario. Here are my reasons for that.

1. The ACC offers far superior demographics compared to the B1G. Long term, the Midwest and the Northeast to some degree may have issues. Southern and Mid-Atlantic markets, however, are still growing and providing ND with a fresh new crop of eyeballs. More or less, the B1G wants to take schools in the ACC for essentially the same reason. ND by contrast has had the freedom to move their affiliation rather than hoping schools from the growing regions attach themselves to a different league.

2. ESPN wants it all. I don't think ESPN would give up any access to ND games unless they had to. While the network would love to get greater access to B1G games, they may be able to do it anyway if the BTN loses more steam and/or the exposure on FOX continues to be limited. They've got about 5 more years and they'll be going back to the negotiating table anyway. By that point, ESPN will have several years worth of ESPN+ activity, operational RSNs, and the after effects of the SECN and ACCN being bundled together to add to their selling points. The B1G might come back without requiring favors. In a manner of speaking, I think ND in the ACC is actually a point of leverage for ESPN. ESPN has access to a lot of Midwestern markets without paying the full cost for the B1G. ESPN can say..."Delaney, we don't have to have your full slate to have your markets."

Then again, I'm not sure the B1G would really come back to ESPN in a more expanded role under any circumstances...not while Delaney is in charge anyway.

3. ND could probably make a good bit more money in the B1G, but I'm not sure it would be $200M over the course of a decade. If they go all in on the ACC then that ends up being a decent bump. The bundling of the ACCN and SECN will cause a bump as well. The gap will still be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it will quite be that much. I think the reasons that ND has always rebuffed the B1G are wide and varied so I think it will take more than a nice raise to get their attention.

4. The buyout would be significant even if all parties were interested in making it happen. If for no more reason than ND has to get out of that NBC deal...
05-06-2018 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1520
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why?
(05-06-2018 04:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's what makes me think Colorado is a legitimate option in this scenario.

1. If Oklahoma joins the Big Ten then another familiar face will help smooth things out. For that matter, Nebraska could use another familiar face.

2. If the B1G can't break into ACC territory right now then Denver and the CO market really makes a great deal of sense. It is at least a growing state as opposed to most of the Midwest/Northeast markets within reach of the B1G.

3. From CU's perspective, if the PAC can't get a handle on things then they're going to be woefully underfunded. The PAC Network has not been successful so they could make quite a bit more in the B1G.

4. While CU does have a lot of alumni in CA, it's not as though they have large roving bands of fans following their team around PAC territory. If CU moved then they could make up for whatever ripples it caused by consistently scheduling West Coast schools in non-conference.

5. More than that, their exposure in the East and Midwest has been reduced to nil. I wouldn't be shocked if Colorado believed in 2010 that they were going to be the first in a line of Big 12 schools to break ranks and create a larger, more robust PAC. It obviously didn't happen that way, but there had to be discussions of this prospect and we all know Texas was trying to lead a squadron over there. I'm not saying that CU doesn't prefer the PAC, but I'm not convinced that their new conference home is doing everything for them that they expected it would.

-Now, I really don't think Notre Dame is an option to move in this scenario. Here are my reasons for that.

1. The ACC offers far superior demographics compared to the B1G. Long term, the Midwest and the Northeast to some degree may have issues. Southern and Mid-Atlantic markets, however, are still growing and providing ND with a fresh new crop of eyeballs. More or less, the B1G wants to take schools in the ACC for essentially the same reason. ND by contrast has had the freedom to move their affiliation rather than hoping schools from the growing regions attach themselves to a different league.

2. ESPN wants it all. I don't think ESPN would give up any access to ND games unless they had to. While the network would love to get greater access to B1G games, they may be able to do it anyway if the BTN loses more steam and/or the exposure on FOX continues to be limited. They've got about 5 more years and they'll be going back to the negotiating table anyway. By that point, ESPN will have several years worth of ESPN+ activity, operational RSNs, and the after effects of the SECN and ACCN being bundled together to add to their selling points. The B1G might come back without requiring favors. In a manner of speaking, I think ND in the ACC is actually a point of leverage for ESPN. ESPN has access to a lot of Midwestern markets without paying the full cost for the B1G. ESPN can say..."Delaney, we don't have to have your full slate to have your markets."

Then again, I'm not sure the B1G would really come back to ESPN in a more expanded role under any circumstances...not while Delaney is in charge anyway.

3. ND could probably make a good bit more money in the B1G, but I'm not sure it would be $200M over the course of a decade. If they go all in on the ACC then that ends up being a decent bump. The bundling of the ACCN and SECN will cause a bump as well. The gap will still be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it will quite be that much. I think the reasons that ND has always rebuffed the B1G are wide and varied so I think it will take more than a nice raise to get their attention.

4. The buyout would be significant even if all parties were interested in making it happen. If for no more reason than ND has to get out of that NBC deal...

I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.

Instead I think they would be making plays for the two Arizona schools, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A. and perhaps Utah and Colorado themselves. In which case Stanford, California, Oregon, Washington and perhaps of couple of the Big 12's targets would also be on the Big 10's short list.

So in other words if the PAC is being raided the Big 12 isn't going anywhere. But let's suppose for a minute that the PAC is raided. What do you suppose that Michigan, Michigan State, and Stanford in the same conference would do to Notre Dame's desire to remain in the ACC? And if the Big 12 grew back to 16 out of the PAC and the Big 10 went to 18 or 20 from them, what would that do to the SEC's desire to expand from the ACC?

So if ESPN, which will act in its own self interest, truly wants to hold onto the ACC and SEC then it is their best interests to make sure that the PAC doesn't fold. Because if it does they will never fully land Texas or Oklahoma or Kansas and the lure for N.D. to leave will be even stronger.

So getting back to the case at hand since the Big 10 won't take Oklahoma State, perhaps the only solution to eliminating the Big 12 is for the SEC to take the pair of Oklahoma schools and let Texas live in fear of heading North without any support for the fans back home with regard to their annual schedule.

But then that brings us back to what ESPN (allegedly) tried to accomplish in 2010. Remember when N.C. State and Virginia Tech were going to be the perfect additions for the SEC? The only reason they were discussed was because the hope of the Mouse in the pre GOR days was to raid the Big 12 taking Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame all to the ACC. Remember this is pre Louisville and Maryland was still a member. So minus the two redundant state schools the remaining ACC has room for the addition of 4 major brands (which is what Deloss Dodds was shooting for). It would have given the SEC a presence in North Carolina and Virginia and with Texas A&M and Missouri on board it would have set up some major cross conference rivalries between Missouri / Kansas, A&M / Texas, and Oklahoma / Nebraska. It was a huge win all the way around for ESPN until rarified selfishness supposedly torpedoed the deal.

Now if ESPN truly wants Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the same deal would work today. Let Va Tech and N.C. State head to the SEC and those three can join with N.D. all in and then both conferences would be of relatively equal value and the Big 10 would have nothing on either of us.

Excluding the PAC that would bring equality to NCAA football.

But as long as the ACC old core remains resistant we will continue hearing trying propaganda from the baby blue mafia suggesting Missouri leave with Kansas to the Big 10 so that Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State can join the SEC. Never mind if that pisses off A&M. The original deal kept the Big 12 pals together grew the SEC in a reasonable way and would have made everyone happier who was not named UVa, UNC, Wake, or Duke.

What ESPN realizes now is that if Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC they will forever have Big 10 relationship issues. Never will have balance. And in the end will be forced to pump more money into the ACC just to keep it from remaining obviously vulnerable.

It also realizes that if Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the Big 10 they will lose the SEC's business down the road and then the SEC will raid the hell out of the ACC anyway.

ESPN does want it all, but that includes a nice chunk of the Big 10 to go along with their prizes of the SEC and ACC. Notre Dame has been their insurance of entry into Northern cities should the Big 10 indeed become fully hostile to them. What they never wanted was acrimony between the SEC and Big 10 over the properties they hoped to put in a place where they couldn't hurt either the SEC or Big 10, the ACC.

It's why now perhaps the only way for ESPN to hold firmly onto the SEC while holding what they want in the Big 10 is to squirrel those properties away to another conference that won't create anger between the SEC and Big 10 over their movement, the PAC. But first ESPN will have to buy something they probably don't want, the PACN.

For ESPN the placement of Texas and Oklahoma can't screw up their larger holdings. So ATU, the only way ESPN gets everything they want is if by getting it it doesn't cost them the SEC or part of the Big 10 or worse, both.

The ACC screwed the pooch for themselves and ESPN in 2010 and that's why ESPN drug its feet with the network that was planned to open 1 year after the SECN but with some lineup of headliners to sell their carriage. Florida State and Clemson are great. But add Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame to those two and you could sell the ACCN anywhere and what's more Maryland doesn't get pissed and leave over missing out on the promised bonanza.

So now the solutions are these:

1. Texas and Oklahoma are split between the SEC & Big 10 because if they are not ESPN will lose access to one of them altogether. Who the #2 is in either case is irrelevant.

But the consequence of this solution is that the SEC and Big 10 become uber conferences and the ACC and PAC will always trail them at a significant distance.

2. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State head to the PAC and neither the Big 10 nor SEC is offended.

But the consequence of this solution is that ESPN will have to buy into the PAC and then suffer not being able to monetize Texas and Oklahoma as fully there as they could have in the ACC in 2010, or severely in the SEC or Big 10.


3. Reprise the deal of 2010 and send Kansas, Texas, and Oklahoma to the ACC. The SEC gets Virginia Tech and N.C. State. The deal stays in house so to speak and sharing the footprint and bundling the networks makes even more sense.

But the consequences will be a chilly relationship with the Big 10 which will likely lead to a PAC / Big 10 alliance of some sort, or at minimum simply alienates both conferences to ESPN. The Big 10 is in need of a tie to a recruiting hotbed somewhere in the Southwest or along the Mid Atlantic southward.

A compromise could be reached here if Virginia Tech headed to the Big 10 and N.C. State to the SEC. But whereas the SEC might be able to achieve one of its goals by taking T.C.U. or Oklahoma State, the Big 10 would have less palatable options for a #2 to accompany the Hokies.

4. ESPN encourages advances by the Big 12 and Big 10 on the PAC. ESPN and FOX share properties pretty close to 50/50 in the PAC (where rights are leased), and in the Big 10 and Big 12 (with the exception of T3 rights as represented individually by the schools of the Big 12 or as a unit with the BTN).

The consequences would be a totally alienated SEC that backed off of Oklahoma in 2010 and would have been screwed over by the foul ups of the network and the ACC who we would hold accountable. Remember if the SEC had not been led to believe that N.C.State and Virginia Tech would be available we might well have moved to 16 in 2010 with the deal Boren wanted back then, the pair of Oklahoma's. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Missouri would have been a stellar way for the SEC to get to 16 and it could easily have been pulled off.

So here we are. If FOX is bowing out of the collegiate sports broadcasting business then maybe ESPN's best move forward is to go hard after the Big 10 and try to hold onto it's key properties that way.

Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2018 07:32 PM by JRsec.)
05-06-2018 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.